Review the reading article by Zemke, R & Rossett, A (February, 2002). A Hard Look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26-28,30-32,34, and consider reviewing other articles that could help you with this debate from this or earlier modules. The Zemke and Rossett (2002) article centers upon an ongoing debate in the field of Instructional Design. There are basically two opposing views to the issue:
ISD is no longer a valid model for the design of instruction.
Your original post should be the position that you are taking (300- 400 word). Your two response posts are where you should be defending your position and debating your assigned viewpoint with other students (100-150 word).
Be convincing in your argument. You are not required to fully cite your statements, but it will make it more convincing and better support what you say if you relate some of it to what you have read. Use any texts, articles, Web sites, journals, etc. that you know about to give you ideas on what to say. I have compiled a few below to give you some ammunition to draw from. Stick to your role. You won’t necessarily believe what you are saying, but you will be striving to convince ‘the other side’ to see your points and switch over to your side.
• Don Clark’s Critiques to the System Approach to Training
• Gram, T. (2009). ADDIE is Dead! Long Live ADDIE! Retrieve from https://gramconsulting.com/2009/09/addie-is-dead-long-live-addie/.
• McClernon, T. (2006). Rivals to systematic training. Advances in Developing Human Resources; 8; 442 – 459.
• Naish , R. (2004). Why Instructional Design is Hated, e-Learning Age, June, 18-19. ***
• Wallace, G.W., Hybert, P. R., Smith, K.R., & Bleck, B. D. (August, 2002). Designing for the ISD Life Cycle. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 25 – 29.**
Write a 300-350 statement of ISD is no longer a valid model for the design of instruction, and argue the following A1 and A2, reply with 100-150 words each
A1)
Instructional design is still valid in increasing the effectiveness and efficiency in learning. One of the first steps in ID as pointed out by both Clark (2002) and Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp (2012) is assessing if instruction is even needed. This very important step can save time and money if instruction is not the answer to the performance-based problem.
A second benefit of Instructional design is the analysis component provides structure to learning that takes place between the materials used and the learner. It helps the learner make sense of the information given to them through goals and objectives. If goals and objectives are not given, the learner could wander aimlessly through lots of information without knowing what to focus on. The learner could easily get lost in what they can relate to or what they have been previously exposed to and not gain knowledge from other critical information. This is excellently illustrated on a you tube video entitled Awareness Test. https://youtu.be/TxgWHsfk6Zg
Instructional design also remains relevant because it allows analysis of the learner, making the material used current and relevant to the learner. We have learned that cultural considerations are significant in the design phase. ID helps us continue to be systematic in the learner analysis and avoiding any potential displays of discrimination. Furthermore, in this fast changing age of technology, remaining current and relevant to the learner is mandatory.
The formative evaluation process of ID allows you to monitor the progress of instruction, allowing the designer and instructor the flexibility to make adjustments if objectives are not being met. Again a product here is cost effectiveness, waiting to the end of course instruction to learn that objectives are not being met is time and financial investment wasted. This phase also allows the ID practitioner to measure the results and communicate them in an organize method to the stakeholders. This measurement and communication is key in the stakeholder’s assessment of ROI and will affect their view on future training investments.
The Instructional Design method allows a systematic shaping of the learning process, giving structure and specific goals around what is to be learned and what knowledge, skills, and attitudes are to be achieved. Without this guidance and systematic approach, it’s possible that critical learning will be missed and no return on investment will be produced.
A2)
In an ongoing debate regarding the current state of instructional design, there are those who believe that instructional system development (ISD) is no longer a valid model for the design of instruction. However, those who criticize the use of ISD and the ADDIE model today might be forgetting just how much more rigid ISD/ADDIE was not but a few decades ago. ISD/ADDIE has come a long way since the linear or waterfall days. Today ISD/ADDIE serves to establish a sound foundation for the process of instructional design. Simply put, ISD/ADDIE today is a simplistic set of familiar phases that provide instructional designers with a set of useful heuristics; a general framework to help organize and provide structure to the processes involved with designing instruction. Gram (2009) states, “ADDIE (and its more current modifications) is probably most valuable because it makes the work of learning design visible” (Love section, para. 7).
Recent evolution of ISD/ADDIE has come to include feedback loops and rapid prototyping as a more iterative approach to instructional design. Today, an emphasis on constant formative evaluation throughout the design processes makes ISD/ADDIE more of a cyclical process than it might have been historically. Perhaps the flaw is not in the ISD/ADDIE process itself, but rather the poor implementation of the process by instructional designers. Again, ISD/ADDIE has evolved over the years to accommodate changes in the field of instructional design. However, this evolution does no good unless instructional designers accept and utilize ISD/ADDIE for its purpose as a generic list of steps that should be customized and accomplished according to the situation at hand. ISD/ADDIE should be viewed as a basic start point, from which the designer can creatively design a customized an appropriate approach to instructional design.
Therefore, it is without a doubt that I believe ISD/ADDIE to be a valid model for the design of instruction. I would welcome anyone who discredits ISD/ADDIE to offer up a new framework for instructional design that does not include the phases of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation to some capacity. Although several models have been developed in an effort to replace ISD/ADDIE, these five familiar phases can be identified at the heart of nearly every model. To disregard the ISD/ADDIE process entirely would be similar to trying to navigate a large, unfamiliar city without the guidance of a road map or GPS. As instructional designers, it is critical that we break free from our preconceptions about the conventional application of ISD/ADDIE and move forward to think about how ISD/ADDIE can further evolve to meet today’s demands.
